ArticleJournal of atrial fibrillation
Cost-Effectiveness of Dabigatran Exilate in Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Journal of atrial fibrillation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Budget and health impact of switching eligible patients with atrial fibrillation to lower- dose dabigatran.Journal of market access & health policy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDabigatran exilate has emerged as a highly effective tool in treating atrial fibrillation, AF). Its relative convenience in terms of cost and overall utility with respect to other anti-coagulants, however, has not been explored in much detail yet. METHODS AND
resultsWe run a Markovian disease simulation model based on a cohort of 1000 randomly generated patients which were sub-grouped by average risk of hemorrhage and average risk of stroke to compare treatments with Aspirin, Warfarin and Dabigatran. Quality-adjusted life-year, QALYs) for the patients were projected over up to 30 years with mortality statistics database and properly adjusted after every 5-year survival from the starting date. If managed within the prescribed range, Warfarin offers the highest outcome in terms of QALYs: 7.93 versus 7.61 for the Aspirin treatment and 7.57 for highest dose treatment with Dabigatran. Dabigatran outperformed the other treatments in patients at high risk of major stroke, provided Warfarin was not managed optimally. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for Dabigatran versus sub-optimally managed Warfarin was €7,759.48/QALY meaning that every year in perfect health earned with Dabigatran cost less than €8,000 more than the alternative treatment with Warfarin.
conclusionsThe therapy with high-dose Dabigatran proved the most clinically safe solution for patients at high risk of stroke unless Warfarin therapy was excellent.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.